 |
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
i think this is more to do with their application and their development team.I know that this application is developed by winsystems spain and used by forbes for their online lottery systems.The actual thing that happens there is the communication problem.so it has nothing to do with the OS.moreover Windows 2003 is a maure software to handle this kind of issues.
-
Karthik
comsys
bangalore
|
30/09/05 04:16 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
It probably will be in a couple years time, no reason to invest in an upgrade at this moment.
-
Henrik R Clause
Komputer for al
Copenhagen
|
09/01/04 07:13 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
| |
No need to live with problems for two years if a better solution is readily available, either.
-
John Bell
Anonymous
|
10/01/04 12:15 AM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
| |
MS provides the best and most reliable server software available. A lot of people like to say otherwise, especially to try to promote a free unix operating system which will never be more than a jumble of different ideas attempting to work together. MS provides a tight, integrated suite of functionality and I have had many more positive experiences with it than with Linux which I feel only does half the job in most situations.
-
Jeremy Steffler
EDS
New York
|
30/01/04 08:09 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
"IS Windows 2003 a dependable, mature syste?" As compared to What?!?!? Compared to other Windows systems, it's about par. Compared to Linux/UNIX? nothing MS has ever made has even come close!
As for you commenters that seem to want to blame the app, keep in mind that the OS has a lot to do with keeping the apps in bounds and managing the communications between apps and between apps and subsystems. Also, lording security concerns over the apps, keeping them isolated. Linux/UNIX have excelled at this from the beginning and were written purposely to do that well.
Let's all remember Windows root, DOS. Not that much/any of the old DOS code still remains, but it is a mind set that MS has found hard to shake. They have also been hobbled by their insistance on "backward compatibility" and application integration with the OS
-
Anonymous
Anonymous
|
16/01/04 02:52 AM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
If you take the emotion out of these obviously sweeping statements and focus on the facts, you will more than likely find that the problem lies with the application and the logic being developed inside it. You will also probably find a low degree of Windows competency and a lack of understanding of .NET and Windows programming. Rebooting a system to eradicate a logic problem is v-e-r-y suspect.
I would also add here that you will probably find that the applications have been given extra functionality and more complexity.
That, mixed with low competency is asking for, no begging and praying for, disaster.
Take unfounded emotions and perceptions out of the equation and focus on fixing the problem... a bad workman and all that...
-
Hatch
Anonymous
Deepest Darkest Africa
|
12/01/04 05:22 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
Since we've switched to 2k3 from Linux, we create many code having "business logic malfunction", while all our old applications on the old Linux server still run fine. Did I or my team forget bugfree programming? All I do is wondering, crying, and giving up on debugging.
-
Anonymous
Anonymous
Budapest/Hungary
|
11/01/04 10:26 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
"Business logic malfunction" is an application problem, but failing to control the application inside the OS is a Windows problem. Sounds to me like a user-level application is compromising the OS. Ouch.
-
Anonymous
No, Inc.
Sacramento
|
11/01/04 06:16 AM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
My kids sure like Windows. It has lots of pretty GUI and multi-media things. It's a PIA for real applications - stick to Linux, Unix or Netware.
-
Anonymous
Anonymous
Columbus
|
10/01/04 11:22 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
| |
Sounds to me like they are hiding some info in this article. If his people are Unix capable, then they know how to write for Linux/Unix and probably didn't have enough knowledge of developing alls for another OS. This story is too full of inconsistencies but you folks are all too ready to be spoonfed this kind of crap without all the data.
-
Bob R
Anonymous
|
10/01/04 11:17 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
Well, I use W2k3 Small Business Server as a workstation (I got 5 licenses free at a conference) and I would rather just have XP Pro. Of course, that has no bearing on its server quality, but I'd at least wait for SP1
-
Josh Hansen
Josh Hansen Ent
Provo, UT
|
10/01/04 03:48 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
Wait there... what does the reliability or not of OS have to do with "business logic malfunction"?? sounds like an Application issue to me?
-
Jim
Anonymous
Dallas
|
10/01/04 06:55 AM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
Wait... how the heck can "business logic malfunction" be OS related?? Sounds like an app problem?
-
Jim
Anonymous
Dallas
|
10/01/04 06:50 AM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
Its better than 2000 in some regards, but no, its not yet stable enough for production use. I think RHEL 3.0 has been more stable in its short infancy than Windows 2003 has been.
-
Andrew Davis
North County Co
Carlsbad
|
10/01/04 01:05 AM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
NO, I would never run a production application on this O/S.
It would be good for a boat anchor, but little else.
-
Perry Trimble
Anon
Memphis, TN
|
09/01/04 10:59 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
No, Windows 2003 is far from being dependable. Recently, we bought several standard editions for our new servers and to also upgrade our W2K machines. After a frustrating full week of troubleshooting and dealing with W2003, we've abandoned any further use of W2003. There were too many inconsistancies with W2003. The Install process sometimes would yield problems with RAID so we would have to reinstall several times before it would appear to run. Other than the stability problems with W2003, there were too many annoying "helpful" features that only hurt productivity. For example, when you reboot, you have to enter in a comment. No thanks Microsoft, we don't need this server Operating System to cater to people that have never seen a computer. This is just another example of Microsoft being completely out of touch. Or more perhaps they're trying to add these useless "features" to justify the high cost of their Operating System in a time when Server Operating Systems are a commodity.
-
Brent Hawkins
Anonymous
Seattle
|
09/01/04 09:57 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
The architecture was never any good, the code quality of the kernel was never any good, they have been patching the beast ever since WinNT 3.5 and kicked the code on the market too early for commercial reasons (the users'll find the bugs, we release a Service Pack and the marketing department will fix everything else). I myself find myself waiting for no obvious reason for seconds, servers have to be rebooted every month in order to flush out all the memory leaks, and some servers never come up after they have been rebooted for no obvious reasons.
Mature? Dependable? Well, as some commenter put it: "the kind of quality, stability, robustness and reliability that you've come to expect from the Windows product line. After all, it has a company like Microsoft behind it". ;-)
-
Hans Bezemer
Anonymous
Delft
|
09/01/04 09:18 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
Of course it's dependable, didn't you read the article? It is totaly dependable that it woll cause errors that are dependably only correctable by resetting the server. Total Dependability, what more can you ask for!!
-
Larry
Anonymous
Steelville
|
09/01/04 08:17 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
If you are runing a server you really should consider Linux. Its not as pretty as Windows but it sure works better.
-
Michael
Anon
Ottawa
|
09/01/04 08:12 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
Windows 2003 *IS* dependable. You can depend on Windows 2003 to have the kind of quality, stability, robustness and reliability that you've come to expect from the Windows product line. After all, it has a company like Microsoft behind it, who we can also depend on to be there for us when they need an upgrade.
-
Danny
Anonymous
Lawrence KS
|
09/01/04 07:53 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
Is W2k3 dependable and mature? This question appears to be a joke. W2k3 is bug-ridden alpha quality software. You are fools for trying to use it.
-
Anonymous
JiT
aah
|
09/01/04 02:50 PM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Report this as Offensive post
|
|
|
Ofcourse it is. It is very surprising to note in the article that *business logic* malfunctions are being attributed to Operating System. It would be prudent to look at whats going wrong with the business application and fix that rather than spending time/money/efforts in shifting platforms unless the problem is really with configuring the servers the right way -- which again can be solved pretty easily by inviting experts to look at the problem and fix it once and for all.
-
Ravi Datanwala
Knowledge Archi
Mumbai
|
08/01/04 02:12 AM
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
